For those of you who enjoyed The Hobbit...

[Selino631]

10 Improvements that would make The Hobbit even MORE mind blowing 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcMkf2iq1Ac

[Fulcrum]

The idea of taking a ~200 page book and making it into three, 3+ hour long movies seemed to me to be a bit excessive.   I love the LoTR movies...and liked the extended versions even more....but this seems like, to quote Bilbo, "...butter spread across too much bread...". 

[Saxman]

The idea of taking a ~200 page book and making it into three, 3+ hour long movies seemed to me to be a bit excessive.   I love the LoTR movies...and liked the extended versions even more....but this seems like, to quote Bilbo, "...butter spread across too much bread...". 

I agree with this. 2 movies probably would have worked ok, but 3 is definitely pushing it too far.

As a related aside, is anyone else getting annoyed with series adaptations (Harry Potter, Hunger Games, etc.) deciding to split the final book into two movies even though every other book in the series is done as one film? That just screams of "milk it for all it's worth."

[Fulcrum]

... That just screams of "milk it for all it's worth."

Yup.  Hollywood is so lacking in original ideas (thus the remakes) they have to milk everything to try to make as much money as possible off the things that might sell.

I honestly thought The Hobbit would be one movie.  Silly me.  Money grubbers.  I'm surprised there hasn't been a scene with Bilbo taking a Diet Coke out of his backpack to drink...

[wpeters]

I am looking forward to the movie Divergent

[SmokinLoon]

I dont mind the stretching of The Hobbitt in to three movies, I think it makes the story deeper.  In certain ways it makes it more complete.  If anyone could do it well enough it is Peter Jackson.

[Nypsy]

The idea of taking a ~200 page book and making it into three, 3+ hour long movies seemed to me to be a bit excessive.   I love the LoTR movies...and liked the extended versions even more....but this seems like, to quote Bilbo, "...butter spread across too much bread...". 

Exactly.

[Rogue9Volt]

I would've been fine with two movies, even super long ones.  However, three is a little bit much...  Especially since they've added so much extra crap that wasn't in the book!  One can extrapolate that Legolas was Thranduil's son from reading, but to add him to the movie in more than a slight cameo is really milking his fame I think.  I'm not happy with adding new characters either.

I will say, I loved seeing Freeman opposite Cumberbatch...  Those two are good together and:

[GScholz]

10 Improvements that would make The Hobbit even MORE mind blowing 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcMkf2iq1Ac

Brilliant! 

[Meatwad]

They could of all took a break for a kit Kat bar

[Brooke]

I suspect they figured, with all of the investment needed in making even one, stretching it to three would give a better return on investment.  I understand that business motivation, and have no complaints with it.

But I didn't like Hobbit part 1 much.  Part 2 was better, but still not that good.  Too many typical, stupid Hollywoodisms in it.

[bozon]

I understand the $$ reasons to make 3 movies out of it, but why do they need to be 3 hours each?!

The first thing I thought about when coming out of the 1st movie was that I would have left at least 40 minutes of it on the floor of the editing room and nobody would have noticed. It is really full of redundant scenes one after the other. All this extra crap can be saved for the "editor's cut" or the "DVD special" editions.

If you can't tell a story in 100 minutes or less, then there is something wrong with the script or editing. Up to 20 minutes extra are allowed in special cases and if there is no #2 movie.

[Fulcrum]

The first thing I thought about when coming out of the 1st movie was that I would have left at least 40 minutes of it on the floor of the editing room and nobody would have noticed. It is really full of redundant scenes one after the other. All this extra crap can be saved for the "editor's cut" or the "DVD special" editions.

Yep.  Felt the same way.  With LoTR there was SO MUCH stuff that could have been in the movies from the book PJ had to leave out or he would have ended up with a 24-hour TV miniseries.  The Hobbit movies feel the opposite i.e. So little is in the book to put into three 3 hour long movies PJ stuffs extraneous crap or characters in each scene to stretch the time out.

I'm just glad PJ decided to leave the poems and songs out of both movies for the most part....that would have made them unwatchable.